JunkyardDog

I had a 250 Ninja. It handled great, BUT, it had a typical sportbike riding position, lean forward, lots of your weight on the low bars, and high rearset pegs. Caused too much pain in my arms, legs, and neck to ride very far. I don't think that steering geometry would work well on a cruiser, with it's pull back bars, upright seating position, and forward pegs. It was twitchy even on the Ninja. Jerry.

__________________

Henryinva

Theres an actual law on the books from North Dakota regarding trail:

Legal requirements
The state of North Dakota (USA) actually has minimum and maximum requirements on rake and trail for "manufacture, sale, and safe operation of a motorcycle upon public highways."[12]

"4. All motorcycles, except three-wheel motorcycles, must meet the following specifications in relationship to front wheel geometry:

MAXIMUM: Rake: 45 degrees - Trail: 14 inches [35.56 centimeters] positive
MINIMUM: Rake: 20 degrees - Trail: 2 inches [5.08 centimeters] positive
Manufacturer's specifications must include the specific rake and trail for each motorcycle or class of motorcycles and the terms "rake" and "trail" must be defined by the director by rules adopted pursuant to chapter 28-32."

So, there it is.

Regarding your point on braking. Yes, brakes and trail are two different things.

How much of an impact do you suppose dropping the forks an inch and a half will actually have? Center of gravity isnt going to change but a tad. Forks will still compress the same amount. I would think that 1 1/2 forward drop wouldnt be an almost unmeasurable amount of difference. Ive seen people stick 6 inch fork extensions on bikes and do nothing to compensate for that other than carry bricks with them so they have something to put the kickstand on when they park. Thats the extreme going the other way!

I realize this is a forum and KYA comes into play, but hypothetically, and thats all my conversation is right now, Do you really think it makes a meaningfull difference or have something to back that up as being a major no-no? And dont ya think calling dropping the forks an inch and a half a "Braking Fiasco" a bit much..


AND Im sorry we kind of jacked this thread.......

__________________
"Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight,
he'll just kill you!"

Rest easy Vic...5-15-58/10-28-2010

OldschoolJ

Wow guys, thanks for the info but im not done.

__________________

OldschoolJ

Yeah y'all kinda ****ed my thread off. Thanks I think I'll just do this on my own. You guys have fun.

__________________

rebelCAFE

hey man. i am sorry that the discussion got off track. dont hate us all. i kinda like the look of it in the pic myself. its got a good OLDSCHOOL look to it. judging by your name, i assume that is the look you are going for. looks good to me. i am thinking about turning mine into a CAFE RACER, and i am sure i will get alot of bad comments about that too. dont let it bother you bro. if that is how you want it, then go for it. different strokes for different folks. keep ya head up man, its lookin good.

__________________
have a REBEL of a day!

Fridgitator

I'm curious to see how it comes out. I hope you change your mind about the forum.

__________________

Shadow Shack

My red VLX has about the same geometry. While I too am no fan of the typical sportbike riding stance, I find the snappy responsiveness of that same geometry on my VLX to be a real hoot. I love nailing switchbacks on this bike!

I fully realize you're not done, but that stage happens to be the best time to address these things.

Did the discussion get off track? Only if safe & sane handling and effective braking aren't a big concern. If a safe ride isn't part of the plan, then I humbly apologize for showing any concern toward your safety and well being. I'll let the others who jumped on the safety bandwagon offer their own apologies.

Maybe next time I'll just offer bad advice...like ditching the front brake altogether. It would look so much cleaner that way, and it also resolves that pesky adverse braking issue I've been rambling on about.

Interesting on the ND law. Many folks may stake the claim at 2 inches, I was merely going by industry standards (which, as I said, makes me feel more cozy...I never claimed it to be a safe minimum), and wasn't sure what else had been proven beyond that.

A law whippd up by some legislators...well, I'm sure there's some "best interests" in there but I really don't put a lot of faith into government these days. The fact that they omit three wheelers should be testimony to that premise. By admission of that very law, a trike can legally have a negative trail...tell me that you honestly think that's a good idea. ND seems to think it's okay to run a negative trail trike up to their posted freeway speed limits. I sure wouldn't try it.

Put a solid front wheel on and it might make for an interesting high speed snow plow though.

If they have some actual research behind that minimum and maximum trail, it would be interesting reading. But again, it's really a moot point...we're all in agreement that the stock 4.3" trail isn't going to be overly deterred by the mod in question. It's all semantics at this point.

And again, knowing what the trail actually ends up at is still a good idea.

Yes, and while that opposite extreme does have it's share of negatives (odd CofG and the aforementioned kickstand assitants being the top of the list), it isn't compromising braking ability. Manufacturers have been belting out stock bikes as such for decades (by going the other way, rear-only lowering which mandates a shorter kickstand depending how far they go)...Sportster Low, Dyna Low Rider, and pre-2010 Dyna Wide Glide immediately come to mind.

It's not the CofG that concerns me, in fact it's a moot point. It's the additional physics being forced onto a braking surface.

Let's start from scratch with a stock bike so I can explain what's going on here:

What happens when you brake? The front end dives. Why? Because momentum is thrown forward onto the front tire as the brakes alter the forward movement vector. Tap only the rear brake at any speed (improper braking BTW), and it shifts the weight forward. Tap the rear brake as you squeeze the front lever (which is the proper braking method), and the front brake takes over from there, utilizing that momentum shift in tandem with the caliper (or drum, depending on system) stopping power. This is why a front brake equates to about 75% of a bike's stopping power...the rear brake is merely setting up the front brake to work properly.

Now, take that same bike and drop the forks through the triple trees, as has been done in the pic in question. See what's happening here now? You're putting the bike into an "already braking" stance BEFORE it's braking, hence you're throwing even MORE momentum onto the tire than before once you start braking as such. Which means if you squeeze that lever harder than you need to (as in what you were USED to doing before), it becomes more prone to locking up, because now instead of offering 75% of the bike's stopping power, you're forcing something like, let's just say 85%, onto a system designed for 75...meaning the tire is going to be more prone to locking up thanks to a "taxed" braking system. And a locked tire in motion is about as effective as laying the bike down and letting the paint and steel slow it down, instead of a rolling tire that has a beneficial amount of brake pad (or shoe) pressure to shed the speed instead.

A locked front tire can cause a loss of control, moreso if the forks rotate one way or the other along the way, which can cause a spill...at which point the aforementioned paint and steel takes over the task of slowing the bike down. Which, I can only define as a fiasco, as I really can't think of a better way to describe a stacked up bike.

So to answer the questions: Yes, I consider unbalancing the bike the wrong way a major no-no, and no, I don't think the word "fiasco" is a bit much when it goes into the same context of perfectly unscathed human flesh (or a nice looking bike for that matter either).

__________________
"Ride Safe, Chop Safer"
Support your FLIBS (Friendly Local Independent Bike Shop)
3500cc worth of Honda: http://shadow-shack.20m.com

Henryinva

Well, I just dont see what your saying, at all..

You say then because a drop of an 1 1/2" of the stance, theres momentum? Something unmoving has momentum? I dont think so.

There may be a shift in weight distribution that would have an effect in braking, requiring more front braking pressure. That arguement I would buy. But I think that that small amount of drop would be an insignificant amount of re-distribution, but it would, in fact, be there. I cant see it causing the rider to lock the front wheel any more than if he would have originally.

Logically, I just cant buy into what your claiming will occur with such a small change in stance or bike geometry.

Bike has the same fork travel, same brakes etc..I just cant buy the extremeness of your claim.

Regarding N.Dakota, was just showing that it is in fact illegal. Not that they engineered anything, they just drew the line in the sand so they could get unsafe junk off the road.

__________________
"Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight,
he'll just kill you!"

Rest easy Vic...5-15-58/10-28-2010

1stRebel

oldschoolj dont let couple of grumpy old men ruin it for the rest of us, im liking the start of the bike please keep on posting im digging the style a lot keep up the good work.
and im sure they were just trying to help with their 2 cents, even if it sounded like pure criticism.

__________________

OldschoolJ

Man u guys are crackin me up. If I wanted safe I wouldn't ride a bike. Lol. Ill post when done. Thanks for the concern of my safety though.

__________________